VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

252 DECISION - 42
The Supreme Court held that failure to supply the said copies
to the respondent made it almost impossible for him to submit the
said two witnesses to an effective cross-examination and that in
substance deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to meet the
charge.
As regards the file of the Razakars, it was reported to have
been lost. The respondent’s case was that the Razakars in question
for whose release he is alleged to have accepted the bribe were
released on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of
Police and under the orders of the Civil Administrator. The file was,
therefore, relevant and according to the respondent, the suggestion
that the file had been lost was untrue. The High Court has correctly
held that the inquiry has not been done satisfactorily and that in
substance the respondent has been denied a reasonable opportunity
to meet the charge framed against him.
Whenever an order of dismissal is challenged by a writ
petition under Art. 226 of Constitution, it is for the High Court to
consider whether the constitutional requirements of Art. 311(2) have
been satisfied or not. The Inquiry Officer may have acted bonafide
but that does not mean that the discretionary orders passed by him
are final and conclusive. Whenever it is urged before the High Court
that as a result of such orders the Public Officer has been deprived
of a reasonable opportunity, it would be open to the High Court to
examine the matter and decide whether the requirements of Art.
311(2) have been satisfied, or not.
(42)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 17
(B) Trap — investigation by unauthorised person
Investigation by person not authorised under sec.
5A proviso of P.C. Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec.
17 P.C. Act, 1988) is illegal but illegality does not
affect result of trial.